March 22, 2008 - News from Convenience Stores - Competition for Space is Getting Ruthless.. The big three U.S. cigarette companies: Philip Morris USA (PM), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Lorillard are aggressively competing for advertising space in convenience stores. The point-of-purchase environment, i.e., the convenience store is the main channel through which tobacco companies can entice new tobacco users and retain existing smokers. No longer can tobacco companies advertise on TV, radio, or on billboards and are very limited in print media. The tobacco industry spends more on in-store advertising than all other forms of advertisement combined in 2004 - $11.86 billion vs $2.29 billion. These companies pay promotional allowances to retailers to stock and display their products according to exact specifications. For this particular c-store Philip Morris is demanding 65% of the display space because they claim PM tobacco products are 65% of tobacco sales. Already PM threatened to cut off the store's off invoice allowance if one of the center shelves now occupied by Lorillard brands aren't removed and replaced by PM tobacco products. As the congressional bill to have the federal government provide tobacco regulation, that PM supports, makes its way through the U.S congress the tension grows amongst PM competitors. It is thought that PM was involved with crafting this bill - e.g. in the latest version of the bill, cloves joined menthol as the only additives specifically allowed in tobacco. The competitors are opposed to the bill, indicating it would lock in PM's dominant market share (Raleigh News & Observer). The legislation calls for c-stores to place tobacco products behind the counter - what good is that?? - there should be no tobacco advertising (inside and outside of stores) and tobacco products belong under the counter. In this store Camel SNUS sales have been so poor (at most one can per week) that the expiration date has passed and all remaining cans had to be returned. Click on image to enlarge.. (TobaccoWatch.org) Read more...

March 20, 2008 - Test Marketing of Lorillard's Triumph SNUS in Columbus, OH.. Does Triumph SNUS have a chance where others like UST Inc. (principal subsidiaries: U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates) Revel and Philip Morris' Taboka have failed. In July 2007 Columbus,OH became one of the test sites for Camel SNUS. Camel SNUS has to refrigerated where Triumph does not have to be refrigerated. (Initally, Camel SNUS was made in Sweden but now it's made in North Carlina.) Lorillard's test marketing plan was to sell Triumph SNUS in Ohio and Georgia at a lower cost than other SNUS products. A check of a few convenience stores (c-stores) in the Columbus area found the price of Triumph SNUS (24-pouches) ranged from $3.99 to $4.49 and for Camel SNUS (20-pouches) the price was $4.99 (all prices before tax). Calls in c-stores in various cities in Georgia found that Triumph SNUS was not available yet. Lorillard must have realized the difficulty R.J. Reynolds, UST and PM have had selling their SNUS products. These manufacturers have lowered the price and even given away coupons to get the SNUS for free and the SNUS still did not sell, e.g. Skoal Dry. These manufacturers are calling for more public awareness and educationLorillard's promotion involves instructing the c-store clerk to offer a free can of Triumph SNUS to any person buying a pack of cigarettes.The Chief Operating Officer of UST, Murray Kessler tells us that "Nine out of 10 smokers that try smokeless still reject the product." Even the name Marlboro doesn't seem to sell the SNUS product. Nik Modi, a UBS tobacco analyst has stated, "The Marlboro brand name is not as transferable as many originally believed." Some related news briefs: Anti-Tobacco People Don't Like IT - Camel SNUS and Lorillard's SNUS product Triumph both being test marketing in Columbus, OH..... Click on image to enlarge.. INCOMPLETE.. (TobaccoWatch.org) Read more...

March 18, 2008 - Gene knockout reduces carcinogens in tobacco leaves.. Scientists have found that the amount of certain carcinogens in tobacco can be reduced by silencing a specific gene in its plant. This may lead to tobacco products with reduced amount of cancer-causing agents, especially smokeless tobacco products (the carcinogens studied are more plentiful in these products). Professor Ralph Dewey and Assistant Professor Ramsey Lewis, both from North Carolina State University, joined hands with researchers from the University of Kentucky to deactivate the demethylase gene function that turns nicotine into nornicotine, which turns into the carcinogen N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) as the tobacco is cured, processed and stored. Upon comparison with “control” plant lines with normal levels of gene expression, the genetically modified tobacco plants showed a six-fold decrease in carcinogenic NNN, and a 50 percent overall reduction in the class of harmful compounds called tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) that have been implicated in various cancers in laboratory experiments. In their study report, published online in Plant Biotechnology Journal, Lewis and Dewey say that targeted gene silencing can work as well in the field as it does on the lab bench. It was also found that knocking out the specific gene did not affect the plant’s growth or resistance to insects or disease. One of the authors, Ralph Dewey admits the intent of the work is not to introduce genetically modified tobacco plants. "Once you find a trait of interest, introducing that trait into tobacco varieties that a farmer would grow takes numbers of years," Dewey said.Click on image to enlarge..

March 18, 2008 - Justices turn down smokers' lawsuit against tobacco companies.. The Supreme Court declined Monday (March 17, 2008) to consider a lawsuit accusing tobacco companies of turning minors into smokers by targeting them with cigarette advertising. The California Supreme Court (The California case is Daniels v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 07-740.) ruled against the smokers last August 2007, saying a federal law on cigarette advertising and the companies' First Amendment rights to commercial speech allow the marketing campaigns. At issue is whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act pre-empts California law. The federal law confirms the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to regulate unfair or deceptive practices in cigarette advertising. The smokers sued under California law barring unfair competition. The competition is alleged to be unfair in this case because competing tobacco companies that respect state law operate at a disadvantage. Urging the Supreme Court to turn down the case, the tobacco companies say the federal law pre-empts any state law prohibition on cigarette ads if the prohibition is based on smoking and health. Related news brief: U.S. Supreme Court Declares Maine Online Tobacco Sales Law Null..Click on image to enlarge..Read more...